8 Transformational and Charismatic Leadership · PDF file260 . PART III. THE MAJOR SCHOOLS OF...

256

8Leaders have a significant role in creating the state of mind that is the society. They can serve as symbols of the moral unity of the society. They can express the values that hold the society together. Most important, they can conceive and articulate goals that lift people out of their petty preoccupations, carry them above the conflicts that tear a society apart, and unite them in the pursuit of objectives worthy of their best efforts.

—J. W. Gardner, 1965

The above quote, introduced in the preface, nicely sums up the importance we give to leadership; it also resonates with why charisma matters because

of how leaders draw on morals and use symbolic influencing means to federate followers around collective goals. History has been marked by many men and women who have epitomized a potent force capable of doing great deeds but also of bringing about destruction on a grand scale. It would be hard to imagine what the field of leadership would have been like had transformational and charismatic1 leadership theory not been developed to explain this leadership influencing tactic. Of course, transformational and charismatic leaders existed before the theories were proposed, and these leaders will continue to exist in the future. Such is the assumed impact of charismatic leaders on individuals, organizations, and societies that philosophers, historians, psychologists, and other social scientists have taken turns in attempting to provide a cohesive

Transformational and Charismatic

LeadershipJohn Antonakis

University of Lausanne

AUTHOR’S NOTE: Please address correspondence concerning this chapter to John Antonakis, University of Lausanne, Internef 618, CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny, Switzerland. Phone: ++41 (0)21 692–3438; e-mail: [email protected].

Chapter 8 Transformational and Charismatic Leadership 257

explanation of what I think is probably one of the most interesting pieces of the leadership puzzle.

Transformational and charismatic leadership theory has had a massive impact on leadership as a scientific domain. This leadership approach was characterized by Bryman (1992) as the “new leadership,” such was its break with existing leadership models. In a way, when transformational and char-ismatic leadership theory came along, it provided leadership researchers the “ah-ha” moment for which they had been waiting for many years; it is almost ironic to observe that in terms of its messianic explanations, the theory was to leadership research what charismatic leaders are to followers (cf. Hunt, 1999). That is, it delivered leadership researchers from their plight at a time where there was pessimism and no direction in leadership research; there even came a time when researchers made calls to abandon leadership as a research topic (Greene, 1977; Miner, 1975). It is almost surreal to imagine that leader-ship, as a discipline, was not taken seriously; so when transformational and charismatic leadership theory came along it was embraced in full earnest. As I argue later, perhaps the pendulum has swung too far on the side of trans-formational and charismatic leadership theories, which have eclipsed and possibly maybe stunted other important contributions to leadership.

Transformational and charismatic leadership has been the focus of a great many research inquiries (Yukl, 1999); these approaches have helped shift the leadership paradigm to what it is today (Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004; Conger, 1999; Hunt, 1999; Lowe & Gardner, 2000). This research stream dominates the leadership landscape—whether deservingly or not—at least in terms of published papers in the premier academic journal focused on leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, both in the last decade (Lowe & Gardner, 2000) and in the current one (W. L. Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010).

How did transformational and charismatic leadership theory develop? Why is transformational and charismatic leadership so popular? Where is transfor-mational and charismatic leadership theory heading? I will try to answer these questions and others in this chapter. First, I review some of the major historical works that provided the scaffolding for current theories of transformational and charismatic leadership. In terms of the contemporary theories, I focus in particular on Bass’s (1985) theory—known also as the “full-range leadership theory” or the “transformational-transactional” leadership theory (Avolio & Bass, 1991)—because it is the flagship theory of the transformational and char-ismatic movement (Antonakis & House, 2002). Although a part of my work has focused on transformational and charismatic leadership (Antonakis, 2001; Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Jacquart & Antonakis, 2010), I critically review this theoretical stream and in particular its forbearer, Bass’s theory, highlighting some of its strengths and weaknesses. Given that I am “one of them”—that is, part of the charisma “leadership mafia” as Gemmill and Oakley (1992) would say—it is not easy for me to take this step back and review the theory with a critical eye. Although I pay my respects to the theory, my purposeful “friendly fire” highlights

258 PART III THE MAJOR SCHOOLS OF LEADERSHIP

voids and inconsistencies in the full-range theory (Antonakis & House, 2002; Antonakis, House, Rowold, & Borgmann, 2010); a theory can only be improved if it can be challenged, and it is with this mindset that I am poking some holes in this model. Finally, I also briefly review competing transforma-tional and charismatic paradigms and conclude with where transformational and charismatic leadership is heading, or rather should be heading.

Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: A Brief History ________________

Most writers credit Weber (1947) for having coined the term “charisma” and having provided the first theoretical explanation of the impact of char-ismatic leadership on followers. I will get to Weber later to show how his ideas permeated leadership research. However, theoretical explanations of a phenomenon akin to charismatic leadership and the ways in which leaders should go about influencing followers using potent persuasive means goes back much further in time. In fact, the writings of Aristotle (trans., 1954), appearing in the fourth century BCE, first laid these foundations and, indeed, the foundations to the field of rhetoric, which is a key foundation of charismatic leadership.

In the Rhetoric, Aristotle argued that a leader must gain the confidence of her followers by using creative rhetorical means (i.e., charismatic and transformational), which include rousing follower emotions (the “pathos”), providing a moral perspective via her personal character (“ethos”), and using reasoned argument (“logos”). It will become evident that these three dimensions, as well as other means which Aristotle referred to as being non-artistic (i.e., transactional and aversive reinforcing)—including contracts, laws, tortures, witnesses, and oaths—can be seen as a parsimonious version of Bass’s (1985) full-range leadership theory. To better understand the star-tling insights of Aristotle, which not only touch on charismatic leadership but also on affect and cognitive psychology, as well as other areas of science, I quote from Book I, Chapter II, where he refers to the three kinds of rhe-torical influencing:

The first kind [of persuasion] depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him cred-ible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. This kind of persuasion, like the others, should be achieved by what the speaker says, not by what people think of his character before he begins to speak. It is not true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that


the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses. Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgments when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile. It is towards producing these effects, as we maintain, that present-day writers on rhetoric direct the whole of their efforts. This subject shall be treated in detail when we come to speak of the emotions. Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question. (p. 7)

I encourage readers to go back and read the above passage (and indeed Aristotle’s entire book) once they have read this chapter and the section on the “full-range leadership model” in particular. I find it a real eye-opener to read such classics and others like Plato’s Republic (trans., 1901); these works provided important foundations for western thought on topics concerning leadership, ethics, and good government. What I also find troubling by read-ing these works is why humanity is not more sophisticated and responsible than it currently is, when so much was known so long ago. Why do countries still go to war? Why is corruption still rife? Why is there still large-scale pov-erty and disease? Why is our ecosystem under threat? and Why are people so easily duped by bad leaders?

In essence, many of these problems are problems of leadership. It is only recently that these problems of humanity have been scrutinized, after a particularly regressive period during the dark ages, when science and reason were sidelined; science and reason in all their forms must be brought to the fore and targeted toward better understanding the leader-ship process. Warren Bennis (this volume), who has over the decades demonstrated remarkable perspicacity about the problems of leadership, notes that “it is important to remember that the quality of all our lives is dependent on the quality of our leadership. The context in which we study leadership is very different from the context in which we study, say, astronomy. By definition, leaders wield power, and so we study them with the same self-interested intensity with which we study diabetes and other life-threatening diseases. Only when we understand leaders will we be able to control them.”

Indeed, the most potent of leaders, charismatic and transformational lead-ers, are the ones who can bring about needed social change; although these types of leaders have also been capable of dreadful deeds, which explains Bennis’s concern. Of course, my chapter does not provide a treatise on issues concerning the selection, development, and outcomes of leadership and related topics; this is the job of the entire volume. I focus on charismatic and transformational leadership, though I will touch on some of these other important issues where relevant. Next, I discuss the most important contribu-tions to this research stream (chronologically).


The Weberian Perspective

Weber (1947) was the first to use the term “charisma” and describe the charismatic leader as one who could bring about social change. He identified these types of leaders who arise “in times of psychic, physical, economic, ethical, religious, [or] political distress” (Weber, 1968). For Weber (1968), charisma in leaders referred to “specific gifts of the body and spirit not acces-sible to everybody” (p. 19). These leaders were attributed “with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities” (Weber, 1947, p. 358), and could undertake great feats. Weber (1968) believed that followers of a charismatic leader willingly place their destiny in their leader’s hands and support the leader’s mission that may have arisen out of “enthusi-asm, or of despair and hope” (p. 49). Weber (1968) argued that charismatic authority is different from bureaucratic authority and that at the core of charisma is an emotional appeal whose “attitude is revolutionary and trans-values everything; it makes a sovereign break with all traditional or rational norms” (p. 24). Finally, Weber (1968) stated that the charismatic effect and legacy of the leader may continue as artifacts of the organizational or societal culture, but then wane as the organization or society is enveloped in the rational and methodical processes of the bureaucracy.

What is interesting in the Weberian idea of the charismatic leader is the importance of context and the apparent salvationary qualities of the charis-matic leader. Also important is the notion of charismatic authority as being distinct from other sources of authority. Weber was not very clear on what, specifically, charismatic leaders do, and he was more concerned with ends than with means. Other sociologists continued in this vein (e.g., Shils, 1965). Well-known is Etzioni’s (1964) structuralist perspective, which focuses on the effect that formal leadership has on individuals and the source of power that is used to exert influence over followers. Etzioni (1964) differentiated three types of power bases that leaders may use, namely: (a) physical power, entailing the use of threats or coercion; (b) material power, entailing the use of rewards; and (c) symbolic power, entailing the use of normative or social power (see also French & Raven, 1968). Symbolic power is what Etzioni (1961) referred to as “charisma” (p. 203). According to Etzioni (1964), greater commitment and less alienation will be displayed in followers when their leaders are using sym-bolic over material or physical power, and material over physical power.

Downton’s Rebel Leadership

In line with the Weberian notion of charisma, Downton (1973) proposed a theory of transactional, charismatic, and inspirational leadership in the con-text of the rebel political leader. After Aristotle’s work, this was the first theory to pit contractual (transactional) principal-agent type influence processes against charismatic authority. Strangely, this work predates that of Bass (1985) by more than a decade, but it was not mentioned by Bass in his original work.


Burns (1978) refers to it indirectly (regarding revolutionary leadership) in his transformational-transactional leadership dichotomy. Bass, though, did pay his dues later (Hater & Bass, 1988).

Downton (1973) referred to the term transactional as being “a process of exchange that is analogous to contractual relations in economic life [and] contingent on the good faith of the participants” (p. 75). Downton believed that the fulfillment of mutual transactional commitments forms the basis of trust among leaders and their followers, strengthens their relationship, and results in a mutually beneficial climate for further transactions to occur. Downton distinguished between positive and negative transactions. Positive transactions occur when followers receive rewards contingent on achieving desired outcomes, whereas negative transactions refer to followers’ noncom-pliance, resulting in punishment (as discussed later, this precise notion of positive and negative transactional is how Bass (1985), theorized contingent rewards and management-by-exception leader behavior).

Downton argued that charismatic leaders have potent effects on followers because of their transcendental ideals and authority that facilitate the follow-ers’ identification with the leader. In those conditions, trust is solidified as psychological exchanges occur. This commitment and trust is further aug-mented by inspirational leadership. The inspirational leader is persuasive, and he or she encourages followers to invest in and make sacrifices toward the identified ideals, gives followers a sense of purpose, and creates meaning for actions distinct from the charismatic appeal. Followers relate to these types of leaders, but they do not necessarily revere them. Thus, inspirational leadership is, apparently, independent of charismatic leadership; according to Downton (1973), inspirational leadership does not foster follower dependence in the leader. Rather, “inspirational commitment is always contingent on the leader’s continuing symbolic presentation of the follower’s world view” (p. 80).

Downton argued further that although charismatic relations between lead-ers and followers will ultimately lead to inspirational relations, not all inspi-rational relations lead to charismatic relations. Finally, Downton proposed that all sources of leadership, whether transactional, inspirational, or charis-matic should be used in varying degrees (which is in line with the ideas of Bass, 1985). To conclude, according to Downton (1973), “A system of per-sonal rule may derive its legitimacy from the manipulation of rewards as well as punishments [i.e., transactional leadership], from the manipulation of myths and symbols that give meaning to action and suffering [i.e., inspira-tional leadership], and from the presence of leaders who are able to provide security, a new identity, or cultural reinforcement for those whose psycho-logical dispositions or socialization require that they obey orders [i.e., charis-matic leadership]” (pp. 284–285). Although Downton set what were the foundations for transformational and charismatic leadership theory, the impact he had on the field was minimal—probably because his work was not picked up by psychologists studying leadership in the 1980s, by which time Bass’s theory was firmly entrenched.


A Psychological Theory of Charismatic Theory

House (1977) was the first to present an integrated theoretical framework and testable proposition to explain the behavior of charismatic leaders; he also focused on the psychological impact of charismatic leaders on followers. Also very important was that House provided a theoretical explanation regarding the means charismatic leaders use to influence followers (and thus manage the perceptions of followers); importantly, he referred to charismatic leaders as having the necessary persuasive skills to influence others. He also described the personal characteristics of charismatic leaders and suggested that individual differences of charismatic leaders might be measurable. This theory was perhaps the most important theory that laid the foundations for how charisma is studied today; however, one regret that House did have, which he conveyed to me, was that he “undersold” it by publishing it as a book chapter and not a journal article (thus limiting its impact).

House (1977) proposed that the basis for the charismatic appeal is the emotional interaction that occurs between followers and their leader. Depending on mission requirements, charismatic leaders arouse followers’ motives to accomplish the leader’s ideals and values. Followers in turn display affection and admiration for the leader, in whom their sentiments and ideals are expressed. House believed that charismatic leaders are those “who by force of their personal abilities are capable of having profound and extra-ordinary effects on followers” (p. 189). According to House, these leaders display confidence in their own abilities and in their followers, set high expec-tations for themselves and their followers, and show confidence that these expectations can be achieved. As a result of these behaviors, House argued that these leaders become role models and objects of identification of follow-ers, who in turn emulate their leader’s ideals and values and are enthusiasti-cally inspired and motivated to reach outstanding accomplishments. These types of leaders are seen as courageous, because they challenge a status quo that is seen as undesirable. Furthermore, “Because of other ‘gifts’ attributed to the leader, such as extraordinary competence, the followers believe that the leader will bring about social change and will thus deliver them from their plight” (House, 1977, p. 204).

House (1977) stated that “In actuality, the ‘gift’ is likely to be a complex interaction of personal characteristics, the behavior the leader employs, characteristics of followers, and certain situational factors prevailing at the time of the assumption of the leadership style” (p. 193). Finally, in focusing on the personal characteristics of charismatic leaders, House argued that they display a high degree of self-confidence, pro-social assertiveness (dom-inance), and moral conviction. These leaders model what they expect their followers to do, exemplify the struggle by self-sacrifice, and engage in image-building and self-promotion actions to come across as powerful and competent.

The insights of House (1977) were prescient. His theory was beautifully and clearly expressed and shook leadership scholars out of their current ideas


of how leadership should be conceived at a time when leadership was not being taken very seriously (Antonakis et al., 2004).

Transforming-Transactional Leadership in Political Science

Burns (1978) published his opus magnum on leadership in political set-tings. His work laid the foundations for Bass (1985), particularly with respect to transformative effects of leaders on followers. Burns defined leadership as “inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivations—the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations—of both leaders and followers” (p. 19). Although leaders are intricately tied in those goals with followers, they act as an independent force in steering followers toward those goals. The leader–follower interaction that could occur was defined as either: (a) transactional leadership, which entailed a relationship based on the exchange of valued items, whether political, economic, or emo-tional; or (b) transforming leadership, where the motivation, morality, and ethical aspirations of both the leader and followers are raised.

According to Burns, transforming leadership—focused on transcendent and far-reaching goals and ideals—has a greater effect on followers and col-lectives as compared to transactional leadership, which is focused on promot-ing self-interest and is thus limited in scope and impact. Transforming leaders theoretically raise the consciousness of followers for what is important, espe-cially with regard to moral and ethical implications, and make them transcend their self-interest for that of the greater good. Although both transactional and transforming leadership can contribute to human purpose, Burns saw them as opposing ends of a spectrum. As stated by Burns, “The chief monitors of transactional leadership are modal values, that is, values of means. . . . Transformational leadership is more concerned with end-values” (p. 426). Burns saw these two leadership styles as a trade-off, a zero-sum game.

Bass (1985) essentially built his model on Burns’s (1978) model. Bass extended the model to include subdimensions of what he termed “transfor-mational” (instead of transforming) leadership. Also, although in Bass’s original conceptualization of transformational leadership he was not con-cerned with moral and ethical overtones, he eventually came around to agreeing with Burns that the likes of Hitler were pseudotransformational and that at the core of authentic transformational leadership were “good” values (see Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).

Bass’s Transformational- _______________________ Transactional Leadership Model

Bass’s (1985) transformational-transactional theory includes both elements of the “new leadership” (i.e., charisma, vision, and the like) and elements of the “old leadership” (i.e., transactional leadership behavior focused on role and


task requirements). I mention “some elements” here because the idea of this theory was to go beyond the behavioral two-factor theories of leadership (see Seltzer & Bass, 1990). These theories (see Fleishman, 1953, 1957; Halpin, 1954; Stogdill, 1963; Stogdill & Coons, 1957) conceptualized leadership as being focused on tasks (initiating structure) or people (consideration) and were the dominant leadership paradigm in the 1950s and 1960s. As I mention below, however, the Bass model misses out on task-related leader behavior.

Antonakis and House (2002) encouraged researchers to use the full-range theory of Bass (1985) as a platform from which to build more complete lead-ership theories; however, they also suggested that the theory does not include instrumental leadership (initiating structure), although Bass had suggested otherwise. Antonakis and House came to this conclusion by comparing and contrasting the Bass theory with other “new” theories, which I discuss below, too. Their suggestion was recently tested, and there is strong evidence to sug-gest that the full-range theory is not as “full” as first purported (Antonakis & House, 2004; Antonakis, House, et al., 2010), particularly with respect to strategic as well as work-facilitation aspects of instrumental leader behavior (Hunt, 2004; Yukl, 1999). That is, it appears that a major class of leader behavior is missing regarding aspects that may affect both organizational as well as follower effectiveness. I will touch on these points later, particularly concerning the strategic aspects of instrumental behavior, when I review some competing charismatic-transformational leadership theories.

I first present the Bass theory in its current form (Avolio & Bass, 1991; Bass & Avolio, 1997), which has a long history of research emanating from the work of Bass, Avolio, and their colleagues (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993, 1994; Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; Hater & Bass, 1988; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). This theory has been opera-tionalized and can be reliably measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), as demonstrated in very large-scale studies that have modeled sample heterogeneity (Antonakis et al., 2003; Antonakis, House, et al., 2010). Important to note here, particularly because there has been much controversy about the validity of the MLQ factor structure, is that sample heterogeneity is an overlooked aspect of construct validation. For instance, if two factors covary positively in one context and negatively in another context, then mixing the samples will perturb the stability of the factor structure (Antonakis et al., 2003). Substantial work has been done in this area of psy-chometrics (Muthén, 1989); however, understanding sample heterogeneity and modeling it is only slowly seeping through into applied psychology and leader-ship research. For instance, in the most recent large-scale validation study of the MLQ and an extension of the model (to which instrumental leadership was added), Antonakis, House, et al. (2010) showed that using a MIMIC model (multiple indicator, multiple causes) essentially partialed out the effects of con-textual factors that were causally related to the variables of the MLQ model, thereby improving the fit of the model. Moreover, they showed that with a very


large sample size, the unique effects of the factors can be estimated, despite the strong correlations between factors; that is, the simplest solution to mitigate the effects of collinearity is to increase sample size (Kennedy, 2003). I am stating this latter point expressly because some researchers have suggested that even though the factors constituting the theory are theoretically distinct, their high correlations make them redundant in a regression model. In fact, the ordinary least squares or maximum likelihood estimators have no problem estimating models with highly correlated independent variables as long as the sample size is large enough—and what is “large enough” can be established only through Monte Carlo analysis (Antonakis, House, et al., 2010).

Although there has been much debate about the factor structure of the MLQ model, there is little or no controversy about the predictive (concur-rent) validity of this MLQ, which has been supported by numerous meta-analyses (DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross, 2001; Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2001; Gasper, 1992; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). In its current form, the MLQ measures nine leadership factors. The first five (idealized influence attributes, idealized influence behaviors, inspira-tional motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) measure transformational leadership; the next three (contingent rewards, management-by-exception active, and management-by-exception passive) measure transactional leadership; the last factor is concerned with nonleader-ship (i.e., laissez-faire leadership). Following below is a description of the transformational factors.

Charisma—Attributed and Behavioral Idealized Influence

Idealized influence, or charisma, as Bass (1985) originally defined it, is the emotional component of leadership, which is “used to describe leaders who by the power of their person have profound and extraordinary effects on their followers” (p. 35). Theoretically, these leaders are revered by followers who show loyalty and devotion to the leader’s cause, as they shed their self-interest. As noted by Bass (1998), “transformational leaders shift goals [of followers] away from personal safety and security toward achievement, self-actualization, and the greater good” (p. 41). Followers idealize these leaders, who are role models and who provide them with a vision and purpose, seem powerful and confident, and consider the moral and ethical implications of their decisions. Theoretically, these leaders focus followers on the mission of the group by arousing their need for achievement, affiliation, or power motives. Charismatic leaders communicate symbolically, use imagery, and are persuasive in communicating a vision that promises a better future. In this way, they create an intense emotional attachment with their followers.

Initially, idealized influence was named charisma. However, as men-tioned to me by Bruce Avolio, because charisma may connote idolization of the leader, a more neutral term was sought. Hence, the factor was renamed


idealized influence (i.e., connoting idealization) in subsequent publications (Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991; Bass & Avolio, 1994). Idealized influence was later split into behavioral and attributional components, to answer previous criticisms (Hunt, 1991; Yukl, 1998, 1999), because the scale did not account for “charismatic leadership that was behaviorally-based . . . versus an attribution or impact on followers referred to as ideal-ized influence” (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995, p. 7). Attributional idealized influence refers to attributions of the leader made by followers as a result of how they perceive the leader. Behavioral idealized influence refers to specific behaviors of the leader that followers can observe directly. Although both factors are essentially concerned with a leader’s charismatic appeal, they are enacted and measured differently. Researchers sometimes bundle these factors together; oftentimes, all five of the transformational leadership scales are aggregated, given that they have similar effects and because they are highly correlated (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). However, as mentioned above with a large-enough sample size, their differential effects can be esti-mated (Antonakis, House, et al., 2010).

One problem with the MLQ charisma items is that some are written in very general ways: For example, for the idealized influence attributes scale, how can one go about objectively measuring a leader who seems to be “pow-erful and confident?” More specific behavioral indicators should be consid-ered for the attribute scale in future versions of the MLQ (refer to the discussion regarding future leadership research).

Inspirational Motivation

Inspirational motivation is leadership that inspires and motivates follow-ers to reach ambitious goals that may have previously seemed unreachable. This factor, which is distinct from the idealized charismatic effect, “employs or adds nonintellectual, emotional qualities to the influence process” (Bass, 1985, p. 63). Here, the leader raises followers’ expectations and inspires action by communicating confidence that they can achieve these ambitious goals—described as the Pygmalion effect by Bass (see also Eden, 1988; Eden et al., 2000). By predicting that followers are able to reach ambitious goals, and showing absolute confidence and resolve that this outcome will occur, followers are inspired to reach the requisite level of performance beyond normal expectations, and a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs.

Intellectual Stimulation

This is mostly a “rational” and “nonemotional” component of transfor-mational leadership, distinct from the other transformational components. Here, the leader appeals to followers’ intellects by creating “problem aware-ness and problem solving, of thought and imagination, and of beliefs and


values” (Bass, 1985, p. 99). Bass noted further that as a result of intellectual stimulation, “followers’ conceptualization, comprehension, and discernment of the nature of the problems they face, and their solutions” are radically altered (Bass, 1985, p. 99). Because individuals are included in the problem-solving process, they are motivated and committed to achieving the goals at hand. Intellectual stimulation involves challenging follower assumptions, generalizations, and stereotypes and stimulating followers to seek ways of improving current performance.

Individualized Consideration

Bass (1985) stated that a leader using individualized consideration provides socio-emotional support to followers and is concerned with developing follow-ers to their highest level of potential and empowering them. The leader in this instance gives “individualized attention and a developmental or mentoring orientation” toward followers (p. 83). This outcome is achieved by coaching and counseling followers, maintaining frequent contact with them, and helping them to self-actualize. According to Bass and Avolio (1993) and Seltzer and Bass (1990), individualized consideration should not be confused with the scale “leader consideration” of the Ohio State leader behavioral studies (Stogdill & Coons, 1957), which labeled the leader as being friendly and approachable. However, the data show that this scale probably measures mostly consider-ation, which is not a bad thing per se (though to avoid construct proliferation, scientists should not give new names to existing constructs). Beyond Seltzer and Bass (1990), whose study was very limited, there have not been any studies estimating the strength of correlation between leader consideration and indi-vidualized consideration. The correlation between the two constructs was .60 in the study by Seltzer and Bass (1990); however, this correlation was uncor-rected for measurement error, and the sample size of this study was relatively small (n = 138). Next, individualized consideration did not predict outcomes beyond initiating structure and consideration, though when Bass and Seltzer used a split-sample design, which reduced the sample size and hence reliability, they found results that did not make sense (e.g., intellectual stimulation was negatively related to outcomes, which was probably due to multicollinearity in the presence of a small sample size).

I present the three transactional factors next.

Contingent Reward

Bass (1985) argued that contingent reward leadership is based on eco-nomic and emotional exchanges by clarifying role requirements and reward-ing desired outcomes. In this way, Bass proposed that contingent reward leadership functions in a similar manner to the path-goal theory proposed by House (1971). Contingent reward is a constructive transaction (Bass, 1998),


and it is reasonably effective in motivating followers, but to a lesser degree than the transformational leadership behaviors. Here, the leader assigns tasks to followers, provides assistance for their efforts, and praises and recognizes followers for goal achievement (Bass & Avolio, 1997).

Again, however, although Bass suggested that this factor functions in a way that is similar to initiating structure (which is one of the factors sub-sumed in path-goal theory), contingent reward is more concerned with role requirements and rewards and less about structuring. Indeed, the instrumen-tal leader factors go beyond (and have a stronger effect than do) contingent rewards, as recently shown by Antonakis, House, et al. (2010).

Management-by-Exception (Active) and Management-by-Exception (Passive)

Management-by-exception is by definition a negative transaction, because the leader monitors deviations from norms (Bass, 1998). It is similar to con-tingent reward in terms of focusing on outcomes, but here, the leader acts on mistakes or errors. Based on empirical research by Hater and Bass (1988), management-by-exception was carved into an active and passive component. According to Bass (1998), a leader employing active management-by-exception watches for deviations from norms, whereas a leader employing passive management-by-exception waits until deviations occur before intervening. Thus, the passive form of management-by-exception is often correlated with the last factor of the model, laissez-faire leadership (and researchers often refer to these two forms as passive-avoidant leadership).

Again, as part of transactional leadership, management-by-exception is purported to cover aspects of initiating structure. Some conceptualizations of initiating structure, for example, Fleishman’s (1953) SBDQ (Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire) contain aspects of contingent aversive reinforcements (see Schriesheim, House, & Kerr, 1976). So it is good that this corrective transactional element is measured separately from contingent rewards. However, the positive aspect of task-related developmental feed-back, which is based on prevention of mistakes (e.g., providing information about how mistakes can be corrected, providing learning feedback, and hav-ing a continuous improvement orientation), is not measured in this factor (Antonakis, House, et al., 2010).

Laissez-Faire Leadership

To fully account for all potential full-range leadership behaviors, a scale of nonleadership was added to indicate an absence of leadership (i.e. a nontransaction; Bass 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; 1997). These types of leaders avoid taking positions or making decisions, and they abdicate their


authority. After management-by-exception passive, this factor is the most inactive form of leadership.

As mentioned, several meta-analyses have established that these factors predict outcomes. The latest meta-analysis indicates that transformational leadership, contingent reward leadership, and management-by-exception active correlate positively with leader outcomes, whereas management-by-exception passive and laissez-faire leadership correlate negatively with out-comes (Judge & Piccolo, 2004); similar multivariate regression effects are evident, too.

________Competing Charismatic-Transformational Models

Here, I am including multivariable models that have a transformational-charismatic or visionary component. Some of these are theoretical exposés that are integrative and propositional in nature (e.g., Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). As for the empirical ones, at this time, only the model of Podsakoff and associates (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) has generated substantial research interest. Although the Podsakoff questionnaire measure, the Transformational Leadership Inventory, has not been as closely scrutinized as the MLQ, it is particularly well appreciated by the research community because it is not a propriety instrument (as is the MLQ).

Attribution Theory of Charisma

Conger and Kanungo (1988, 1998) proposed a theory of charismatic lead-ership whereby a leader is legitimized through an attributional process based on the perceptions that followers have of the leader’s behaviors. Leadership is thus “both a relational and attributional phenomenon” and exists in the process of a leader’s interaction with followers (Conger & Kanungo, 1998, p. 38). Conger and Kanungo (1998) proposed that individuals are validated as leaders by their followers through a three-stage behavioral process. This process is not necessarily linear, and the stages can occur in any order and may exist concomitantly.

First, effective charismatic leaders assess the status quo to determine the needs of followers, evaluate the resources that are available within the con-stituency, and articulate a compelling argument to arouse follower interest. Second, leaders articulate a vision of the future that will inspire follower action to achieve objectives that are instrumental in fulfilling the vision. The idealized vision creates follower identification and affection for the leader, because the vision embodies a future state of affairs that is valued by follow-ers. Third, leaders create an aura of confidence and competence by demon-strating conviction that the mission is achievable. Leaders use unconventional


means and expertise to inspire action and display how objectives can be achieved. In this way, they serve as powerful role models to promote fol-lower action. This three-stage process is hypothesized to engender high trust in the leader, and follower performance that enables the organization to reach its goals.

According to Conger and Kanungo (1998), the aforementioned processes can be captured by a behavioral scale, the CKS (Conger Kanungo Scale) comprising the following five factors: (a) formulation and articulation of a strategic vision, (b) sensitivity to the environment, (c) sensitivity to member needs, (d) personal risk, and (e) unconventional behavior. Compared to the full-range leadership theory, it appears that the MLQ scale does not directly capture sensitivity to the environment, personal risk, and unconventional behavior. Theoretically, personal risk and unconventional behavior appear to overlap with the idealized influence (attributed) scale of the full-range leader-ship theory (FRLT) and, thus, should not account for further variation in leadership outcomes beyond this scale. Indeed, recent research indicates that the CKS correlates very highly with transformational leadership (r = .88, uncorrected for measurement error). More importantly, the CKS failed to predict incremental variance beyond transformational and transactional lead-ership in objective performance outcomes (Rowold & Heinitz, 2007). Also, although Conger and Kanungo do provide some evidence in support of their five-factor model, their evidence is not very convincing and there has not been a great deal of validation studies from independent research groups.

Self-Concept and Charisma

House and Shamir (1993) proposed an integrative theory of leadership based on what they termed the “new genre” of charismatic theories. House and Shamir’s integrative framework is largely based on how leaders engage the self-concepts of follower. This theory was based on Shamir, House, and Arthur’s (1993) propositions that charismatic leaders use their vision and mission as a platform to implicate the self-concept of followers. In this way, leaders have exceptional effects on followers, who are motivated by increased levels of self-esteem, self-worth, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, identification with the leader, social identification, and value internalization. Shamir et al. stated that these exceptional leaders affect followers as a result of motiva-tional mechanisms that are induced by the leaders’ behaviors. These behav-iors include providing an ideological explanation for action, emphasizing a collective purpose, referring to historical accounts related to ideals, referring to the self-worth and efficacy of followers, and expressing confidence in fol-lowers that they are capable of fulfilling the mission. As a result of the leader’s behavior, the motivational mechanisms trigger the self-concept effects that lead to personal commitment to the leader’s mission, self-sacrificial behavior, organizational citizenship, and task meaningfulness. These effects are further


enhanced by the generation of self-expression and consistency on the part of the followers. As an example of the intricateness of these effects, Shamir et al. stated that “Charismatic leaders . . . increase followers’ self-worth through emphasizing the relationships between efforts and important values. A gen-eral sense of self-worth increases general self-efficacy; a sense of moral cor-rectness is a source of strength and confidence. Having complete faith in the moral correctness of one’s convictions gives one the strength and confidence to behave accordingly” (p. 582).

Based on decades of work by McClelland (1975, 1985), House and Shamir (1993) argued further that in addition to follower self-concept arousal, leaders selectively arouse follower achievement, affiliation, and power motives, depending on situational factors. For example, in task-intensive environ-ments, leaders arouse achievement motives. In situations requiring competi-tiveness in followers, leaders arouse the power motive. House and Shamir state that this arousal process occurs nonconsciously in followers, and “As a consequence of motive arousal, individuals become further self-engaged, and their feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy become contingent on satisfying the aroused motives” (p. 92). House and Shamir’s theory further proposes that as the leader sets examples of desired behaviors in terms of achievement, affiliation, or power, followers learn vicariously from the leader and emulate these behaviors. In this way, House and Shamir argued that the leader “helps define for the followers just what kinds of traits, values, beliefs, and behav-iors it is good and legitimate to develop” (p. 95).

As a result of the above, and in identifying patterns and gaps in the theo-retical frameworks they reviewed, House and Shamir (1993) proposed a seven-factor model of leadership including (a) visionary behavior, (b) positive self-presentation, (c) empowering behaviors, (d) calculated risk taking and self-sacrificial behavior, (e) intellectual stimulation, (f) supportive leader behavior, and (g) adaptive behavior. These factors overlap somewhat with the MLQ factors, with the possible exceptions of positive self-presentation, cal-culated risk taking and self-sacrificial behavior, and adaptive behavior. Risk taking and self-sacrificial behavior is evident in the attributions followers’ make of the leader’s idealized influence, because the leader displays a high ethical and moral code, is a risk-taker, and has a strong sense of mission (Bass, 1998). The leader, thus by definition, takes calculated risks and makes personal sacrifices. Adaptive behavior is borrowed from Conger and Kanungo’s (1998) theory, and reflects the environmental-monitoring factor that we discussed earlier. Positive self-presentation may be evident in indica-tors of the MLQ (e.g., the power and confidence that a leader displays), and may be gauged in terms of whether followers respect their leader and are proud to be associated with him or her (Bass & Avolio, 1995). In other words, the degree to which a leader uses positive self-presentation will be evident in the charismatic attributions followers make of the leader. House and Shamir also argued that positive self-presentation is concerned with building credibility. Followers who respect and are proud of their leader and


see that leader as powerful and confident—elements that are captured directly by the MLQ—must by definition see the leader as being credible and legitimate. The leader therefore must have cultivated an appropriate image for that process to occur.

The Visionary Leader

Sashkin’s (1988) theoretical framework focused on the key components of visionary leadership in top-level leaders. Sashkin proposed that leaders dis-play sensitivity to situational constraints and operate more on intuition than intellect. Visionary leaders have a high need for socialized power (McClelland, 1985) and domain-specific knowledge of what vision to project as a function of environmental conditions. That is, by virtue of their cognitive skills, they are able to take advantage of situational conditions and are “attuned to the construction of opportunities; they create the future as much as they adapt to it” (p. 128). Sashkin stated that visionary leaders are able to initially express their vision, explain it to others, extend the vision in other situations, and finally expand the vision in a broader context, thus widening the vision’s temporal and spatial sphere of influence. They are able to deal heuristically with uncertain conditions and offer some flexibility in their visions to antici-pate and account for unfamiliar situations. Sashkin also noted that visionary leaders use their insight to adapt the organization to environmental change, and they promote values and ideals that allow for the realization of the vision. Furthermore, they use their vision as a social glue with which to bind followers into a team that collectively pursues a common purpose.

Visionary leaders know how to carve the vision into operational compo-nents that translate into action for all organizational levels. These components involve actions that affect the strategic and tactical levels of the organization and its players. Furthermore, through personal and consistent actions, vision-ary leaders focus the attention of followers on key issues and ensure that followers understand these issues. Finally, these leaders are respectful to themselves and others, increase follower self-worth, and take calculated risks to draw followers into their mission. These actionable behaviors are mutually reinforcing and interrelated.

Sashkin’s (1988) propositions overlap substantially with what the MLQ model espouses, focus more on ideals than ethical or moral overtones, and are strategically oriented, much like Westley and Mintzberg’s (1988) strategic vision theory. Although Sashkin provided a thorough explanation of how vision “functions,” his model generally overlaps with environmental sensitiv-ity and with a combination of factors espoused in the FRLT (e.g., idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration). His propositions regarding the strategic functions of the leader do not appear to be addressed by the other approaches, and they may fill a deficiency in the MLQ model. The rest of his propositions, though, together with Conger and


Kanungo’s (1998) sensitivity to the environment factor and House and Shamir’s (1993) adaptive behavior factor, could serve as a useful basis from which to generate manifest indicators for a behavioral scale of environmental monitoring, as proposed by Antonakis and House (2002).

The Podsakoff Transformational- Transactional Leadership Model

This model is conceptually similar to the original Bass (1985) model. After the Bass model, the Podsakoff model is the most widely used transformational-transactional leadership model (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The model that Podsakoff and colleagues (Podsakoff et al., 1990, 1996) proposed includes both transformational and transactional leadership factors. The transfor-mational factors include (a) identifying and articulating a vision—looking for new opportunities, projecting a vision for the future, knowing the direc-tion that will be taken, being inspiring, and getting others behind the mis-sion; (b) providing an appropriate model—setting an example, leading by doing (rather than telling), being a good role model; (c) fostering the accep-tance of group goals—promoting group cooperation and teamwork, gets the team behind the same goal, develops a team spirit; (d) high performance expectations—setting challenging goals and giving articulating high-perfor-mance expectations, expecting top performance; (e) providing individual-ized support—considering others’ feelings, respecting others, being thoughtful about others; and (f) intellectual stimulation—challenging fol-lowers to think differently, making followers rethink their ideas, looking at old problems in new way.

The Podsakoff model also includes a transactional leader factor: contin-gent reward—giving frequent and positive feedback, gives special recognition for good work, complimenting others for exceptional performance. These factors essentially map on the Bass transformational-transactional model, except for the fact that the Podsakoff model does not include management-by-exception active and passive as well as laissez-faire leadership. For those wishing to include similar factors to these omitted styles, contingent and noncontingent punishment scales, also developed by Podsakoff and col-leagues, could be useful (see Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984; Podsakoff, Todor, & Skov, 1982); these constructs have shown relatively good validities (Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006).

Other Models

Beyond the models that I have reviewed, there are other lesser-known models that are being used. Rafferty and Griffin (2004) recently proposed a five-factor model of transformational leadership, which looks like it might


have some potential; however, this instrument has not been extensively stud-ied by independent research groups, and it omits important correlates of leader outcomes. The Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ) has been recently proposed as an alternative to the United States–centered MLQ-type models (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001); I cannot, however, identify much evidence for the validity of the TLQ. There are not many stud-ies that have used it, and there are no large-scale strong psychometric tests to support its construct validity.

There are several other measures that I could have mentioned; however, they simply have not had much of an impact on research or practice. One measure, which seems to have had an important impact on practice, is the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) by Kouzes and Posner (1987). Although intuitively appealing and driven by the popularity of their book, I am not very impressed with the validation results of the LPI (and there has been very little research on the psychometric properties of this model).

Future Research ___________________________________

Research in transformational and charismatic leadership appears to be in a mature stage (cf. Hunt, 1999). Informal discussions that I have had with lead-ing scholars in the field make me wonder who of the established researchers will lead the transformational-charismatic movement in this current decade, in the way that Robert House and Bernard Bass did. Bass’s long-time collabora-tor Bruce Avolio has been advancing other lines of research (e.g., authentic leadership, leadership development), as has Francis Yammarino (who has been focusing more on methodological issues and levels-of-analysis issues). Perhaps the top contender for this spot is Boas Shamir; he is probably the most estab-lished scholar of charisma, a creative and deep thinker (Howell & Shamir, 2005; Shamir, 1995; Shamir et al., 1993), who has published extensively on transformational leadership, too (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). However, because he is much broader in his outlook than House and Bass were and he moved into the field once it was already established, he might not ever have the “cult” status of a Bass or House.

Collectively speaking, though—and this is good news—work in this area continues at a brisk pace, not only in the traditional spheres of management, applied psychology, business, and general and social psychology, but also in other disciplines—including, nursing, education, political science, public health, public administration, sociology, ethics, operations research, com-puter sciences, industrial engineering, and others. As shown in Figure 8.1, both the number of papers and the number of citations in the field have been growing at an increasing rate. Perhaps this “distributed leadership” setup is good, in the sense that there are many research groups dispersed around the globe in various fields reflecting the “distant” leadership of the trailblazers!


Figure 8.1 Biliometrics of charismatic and transformational leadership theory

1990

0

50

100

150

200

250

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Panel A: Papers per Year

1990

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Panel B: Citations per Year

NOTE: Searches were conducted using the exact terms “transformational leader*” or “charismatic leader*” in the ISI Web of Knowledge topic field (for the time period 1990-2010). Panel A refers to the number of published papers or proceedings indexed in ISI with regression fitted trend line. (Using 1990 as the baseline year, i.e., 1, the number of citations per year was predicted by the following regression model: ypapers = 27.15—5.63*time + 0.66*time2.) Panel B refers to citations received in ISI papers and proceedings with regression fitted trend line. (Using 1990 as the baseline year, i.e., 1, the number of citations per year was predicted by the following regression model: ycitations = 560.80—216.58*time + 17.56*time2.) Note, I estimated the regression models simultaneously using maximum likelihood multivariate regression with robust standard errors; coefficients of the quadric terms were significant in both models, both individually and simultaneously (p < .001). Data retrieved 1 March 2011.


Still, there remains much work to be done with respect to measuring cha-risma, correctly modeling leadership styles (and identifying individual differ-ence predictors of the model), and developing process leadership models in process theories, as I discuss next.

What Makes Leaders Charismatic?

We still do not have a good idea about what makes a leader seem power-ful, confident, and charismatic (reflecting the idealized influence attributes of the MLQ scale). In fact, one of the oft-leveled criticisms at the MLQ reflects the fact that some of the factors might actually reflect outcomes (Yukl, 1999)—that is, they are endogenous, which is not a desirable state of affairs when the factor is modeled as an independent variable (see discussion below on the “correct modeling issue”). Of course, charismatic leaders must use some kinds of communication and image-building strategies to seem power-ful and confident (House, 1977). Researchers have identified some of these strategies with respect to the content of the speech, its framing, and the deliv-ery mode (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Shamir et al., 1993). Essentially, charismatic leaders engage followers’ self-concepts (Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994; Shamir et al., 1993) by using a number of “tricks.” I like to refer these tricks as charismatic leadership tactics, which researchers have been able to manipulate in laboratory experiments (Antonakis, Angerfelt, & Liechti, 2010; Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Howell & Frost, 1989).

Charismatic leaders are risk-takers and are unconventional (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; House, 1977). They set high goals (House, 1977) and make sacrifices for the greater good (Shamir et al., 1993). Most important, charis-matic leaders know how to communicate in appropriate (e.g., emotionally charged) ways so that they can package their message to be easily understood (Frese, Beimel, & Schoenborn, 2003; Wasielewski, 1985); they use positive (Bono & Ilies, 2006) and negative emotions (Wasielewski, 1985) and various nonverbal strategies (Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, & Miller, 2001). They are good storytellers; they know how to use their voice as well as body gestures (Frese et al., 2003; Towler, 2003). In particular, these leaders are masters in rhetoric and make use of contrasts, lists, repetition, as well as alliteration and rhetorical questions (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Willner, 1984). They also use metaphors extensively. These communication devices simplify the mes-sage and render it highly understandable and visible (Charteris-Black, 2005; Emrich, Brower, Feldman, & Garland, 2001; Mio, 1997; Mio, Riggio, Levin, & Reese, 2005).

These charismatic leadership tactics render the elusive charisma factor more tangible, which can be used as a basis to measure a more pure form of charisma (instead of attributions) either directly via others’ reports, using trained coders, or machine coding, which can reliably code certain text themes (Hart, 2000), even semantic meanings in text (Landauer, 1999; Landauer,


Foltz, & Laham, 1998; Landauer, Laham, & Derr, 2004); there are also auto-mated technologies to measure emotions (Sorci et al., 2010). Research in using objective means to measure charisma is sorely needed; it is time to go beyond MLQ-style questionnaire measures.

Correctly Modeling Leadership Style

The discussion here is not only leveled to transformational and charismatic leadership theory; it is relevant to all theories of leadership, particularly the leader-member exchange construct, which is more of an outcome of leader-ship than it is a leadership style (House & Aditya, 1997). Briefly, the problem that researchers have when undertaking cross-sectional or longitudinal research is that the modeled independent variable, say transformational lead-ership (x), is not exogenously manipulated. As I show below, it is important to use stable individual differences or other contextual factors to estimate the causal effect of leadership style on outcomes. I discuss this problem in more detail below, because it is important not only for correct empirical estimation but also for correct theorizing regarding the nature of the leadership effect.

In experimental research, the experimenter is assured that the effect of x on y is due to the manipulation and nothing else. By randomly assigning the treatment, the error term in the regression model captures no systematic variation that is correlated with the treatment or with y (for a detailed exposé refer to Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, 2010). However, with nonexperimental research, the modeler has a problem, in the sense that x may correlate with unobserved variation affecting y (this problem is referred to as one of endogeneity) or that y might simultaneously cause x. Thus, the case of x being modeled as an independent variable, when it is in fact endogenous, creates the condition for a biased estimate of the effect of x on y. That is, the coefficient could be higher, lower, or of a different sign. Many researchers do not understand that the problem of endogeneity renders estimates that are fatally flawed: They often note, for instance, that the relation could be due to y causing x, and thus assume that the coefficient is correctly estimated (but that they are unsure of the direction of causality). That is precisely where the problem is: The coefficient is not correctly estimated and is not even worth reporting, not even as a mere correlation or association. The relation could be zero, negative, or positive.

I will briefly run through two examples to show the problem of endogene-ity. First, if individuals rating leadership style know of the leader outcomes (e.g., how well the leaders’ company has performed), they will be biased when rating the leader due to attribution processes (Lord, Binning, Rush, & Thomas, 1978; Rush, Thomas, & Lord, 1977). That is, good performance will be associated with prototypically good leadership, and thus raters will “see” the leader being better on aspects of leadership that are implicitly asso-ciated with good (or bad) outcomes. Given this biasing effect, leadership is


operationalized in terms of follower perceptions and attributions, which may have little to do with how the leader acts! Such findings make for a sorry state of affairs in leadership research; however, theoretically, this attribution mechanism will be more prevalent in situations of high leader-follower distance (Antonakis, 2011; Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Shamir, 1995). In distant contexts, followers have to “go on” something when rating leaders and will use whatever information is available, including performance cues, to help them correctly categorize the leader (Jacquart & Antonakis, 2010). There are many clear biasing mechanisms at play, including other factors like facial appearance, gender, height, and the like (Antonakis, 2011; Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009). Furthermore, once an individual is classified in a certain way, it is difficult for the perceiver to change the classification (Cantor & Mischel, 1977).

Of course, leaders can affect leader outcomes, too. Yet, failure to correctly model this reciprocal relationship (i.e., a dual-causal model where leadership causes outcomes and outcomes “cause” leadership) or to “lock-in” the causal direction in one of the directions can render estimates suspect. I cannot stress enough the importance of understanding the limitations of leadership ques-tionnaire measures (like the MLQ, and others) and then using the correct design conditions and statistical methods to overcome these limitations.

To better understand this simultaneous causation problem, here is a very well-known example in economics (see Levitt, 1997, 2002). One would rea-sonably assume that hiring more police should reduce crime. However, regressing crime on police produced a positive coefficient (because when crime goes up, more police are hired); such results really baffled researchers. However, correct estimation of this model, where an exogenous source of variance is used to “purge” x of endogeneity, reverses the sign of the esti-mated coefficient. Thus, in this case, the model that is estimated is z → x → y (where z in this case is referred to as an instrumental variable, one that varies independently of the residual variance in predicting y and x). In this case, Levitt used timing of elections (which led to more police hirings; the predicted value of x did not correlate with the error term in the y equation, thus pro-ducing the correct coefficient). There is also the case where x and y depend on a common omitted cause (e.g., affect for the leader). As shown by Antonakis, Bendahan, et al. (2010) this problem of omitted variance bias, of which common method variance is a case, can inflate or deflate coefficients (see also Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003); furthermore, the common method variance problem is not an urban legend, as suggested by Spector (2006).

These problems of endogeneity can be solved by modeling exogenous sources of variance that first predict x and that affect y only via x. Examples could include genetically determined individual differences that can be reli-ably (and ideally objectively) measured (e.g., IQ, personality), fixed-effects of leaders (i.e., obtaining repeated measures over time or from many raters), contextual factors (country, industry, firm), or exogenous shocks (for ideas,


see Antonakis, Bendahan, et al., 2010). Although some research has been undertaken in this area of individual differences (Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge & Bono, 2000), not enough has been done to predict the factors of the full-range model, and this considering contextual factors, too (Lim & Ployhart, 2004). There is hardly any research linking cognitive ability to transforma-tional leadership. This factor should be one “usual suspect” in a correct model specification (Antonakis, 2011). There is not much research on the ethical development of transformational and charismatic leaders (e.g., Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, & Milner, 2002), not to mention biological cor-relates (Antonakis, 2011).

Finally, another problem that I often see is models being estimated that have blatantly obvious omitted causes, for example, regressing y only on charismatic leadership (e.g., Keller, 1992; Koene, Vogelaar, & Soeters, 2002). If variables are omitted from the regression equation that correlate with y as well as with other predictors in the regression equation, then omitting them will produce biased estimates (Antonakis, Bendahan, et al., 2010; Cameron & Trivedi, 2005). Thus, it is important to control for all theoretical causes of y (e.g., task-oriented leadership, transactional leadership) that may correlate with the modeled independent variables. The full-range leadership theory that is estimated must be truly a “full” one, though not to the point of bring-ing in redundant factors.

Leadership Process Model

As many researchers have suggested, to fully understand the leadership phe-nomenon, it is important to model the full leadership process that produces leadership outcomes (Antonakis et al., 2004; Antonakis, House, et al., 2010; Lim & Ployhart, 2004; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004). That is, we must link together leader individual differences, leader styles, and leader outcomes, while also considering level-of-analysis issues (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999) as well as contextual affects, both as moderator and predictors (Liden & Antonakis, 2009). Doing so will ensure not only correct estimation of endogenous variables, but also provide us with a better under-standing concerning the importance of leadership. More research should move in this direction to provide truly new and important discoveries.

_________________________________________ Conclusion

It is clear from this review that transformational and charismatic leadership has become an integral part of leadership theory; this leadership approach is here to stay. However, I must admit that the field has been a bit carried away by the theory. Some cold showers are in order, and they have been coming, albeit sporadically (Antonakis, House, et al., 2010; Hunt, 2004; Judge,


Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; Yukl, 1999). Although called a “full-range theory,” it misses out on good old task leadership (Hunt, 2004) as well as strategic lead-ership aspects inherent to transformational and charismatic leadership approaches (Antonakis, House, et al., 2010).

On another note, House and I threw out a challenge to transformational-charismatic leadership scholars about a decade ago, though we still have not had any takers. After paying tribute to Bernard Bass for significantly advanc-ing the field’s understanding of leadership theory—and this in an edited book emanating from his Festschrift—we noted the following in our conclusions (Antonakis & House, 2002):

We hope to see longitudinal research that establishes that transfor-mational leaders have the ability to actually transform individuals and organizations. This notion implicitly pervades the theories and assumptions of leadership scholars of the new paradigm (Beyer, 1999; House, 1999). We have evidence that behaviors of transformational leaders are associated with improved organizational effectiveness, fol-lower satisfaction, and follower motive arousal, but this evidence does not imply that transformational leaders caused transformations in organizations and followers. Although causal links could be theorized, up to this point, we have seen no empirical evidence to make that deduction. (p. 27)

We are still waiting. To conclude, I trust that the concluding section does not give readers the impression that I am disillusioned by the state-of-research in this aspect of the leadership field. I am not. In fact, I am very impressed by how much research has been done and how much our understanding of the phenomenon has improved due to the efforts of hundreds of researchers. I am also optimistic that we will learn much more about this research stream in the future. What is clear from my review is that even though research in transformational and charismatic leadership is mature, there is still much to be done; just like in the medical sciences, where researchers constantly update treatments for diseases, so too must we find better measures and better inter-ventions. To recap, there is a need for (a) more longitudinal and multilevel research, (b) the development of more inclusive and less biased questionnaire measures, (c) the development of objective leadership measures, and (d) a fuller understanding of process models that also consider contextual effects and individual difference antecedents.

Leadership, particularly its transformational and charismatic form, is sim-ply too important to leave to random processes or to weak institutions. Once societies, companies, or teams appoint leaders who have charismatic influ-ence, they will be stuck with them for some time, so it is best to get this appointment right the first time. We must better understand the processes that produce these leaders because history will, again and again, toss up lead-ers who will wield charismatic power.


______________________________________________ Note

1. As will become evident later, I consider charisma as part of transformational leadership. However, I also use the terms “charisma” and “transformational” sepa-rately to refer to different research streams that treat the terms differently or that focus mostly on charisma.

________________________________ Discussion Questions

1. Using the full-range leadership styles, compare and contrast the lead-ership styles of an effective and ineffective leader.

2. Is transformational leadership moral leadership? That is, is it morally good for collectives to fall in behind a leader who has them cast under a “spell” of sorts? Discuss.

3. Compile an in-depth profile of Jean-Marie Messier, former CEO of Vivendi. Why was his charismatic leadership style a possible contribu-tor to the massive losses incurred by Vivendi under his tenure?

_____________________________ Supplementary Readings

Antonakis, J. (2006). Leadership: What is it and how it is implicated in strategic change? International Journal of Management Cases, 8(4), 4–20.

Antonakis, J., & Hooijberg, R. (2008). Cascading a new vision: Three steps for real commitment. Perspectives for Managers, 157, 1–4

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26–40.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.

Berlew, D. E. (1974). Leadership and organizational excitement. California Management Review, 17(2), 21–30.

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California Management Review, 32(2), 77–97.

________________________________________Case Studies

Film Case: 12 Angry Men, starring Henry Fonda.Case: Gavetti, G., & Canato, A. (2008). Universita’ Bocconi: Transformation in the

New Millennium. Harvard Business School Case 709406-PDF-ENG.Case: Ichijo, K. (2007). Creating, growing and protecting knowledge-based compe-

tence: The case of Sharp’s LCD business. In R. Hooijberg, J. G. Hunt, J. Antonakis, K. B. Boal, & N. Lane (Eds.), Being there even when you are not: Leading through strategy, structures, and systems (pp. 87–102). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.


Case: Mark, K., & Konrad, A. (2005). Anita Jairam at Metropole Services. Richard Ivey School of Business Case.

Case: Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., & Valentina Kuskova. (2010). Dispelling misconceptions and providing guidelines for leader reward and punishment behavior. Harvard Business School Case BH388-PDF-ENG.

References _________________________________________

Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. (2001). The development of a new Transformational Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 1–27.

Antonakis, J. (2001). The validity of the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership model as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Ques-tionnaire (MLQ5X). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (01), 233. (UMI No. 3000380)

Antonakis, J. (2011). Predictors of leadership: The usual suspects and the suspect traits. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Leadership (pp. 269–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Antonakis, J., Angerfelt, M., & Liechti, S. (2010, August). Testing if charisma can be taught: Evidence from a laboratory and field study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Organizational Behavior Division, Montréal, Canada.

Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed the-ory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673–704.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leader-ship: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261–295.

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120.

Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Leadership: Past, present, future. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 3–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting Elections: Child’s Play! Science, 323(5918), 1183.

Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). An analysis of the full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 3–34). Amsterdam: JAI.

Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2004, June). On instrumental leadership: Beyond transactions and transformations. Paper presented at the Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Antonakis, J., House, R. J., Rowold, J., & Borgmann, L. (2010). A fuller full-range leadership theory: Instrumental, transformational, and transactional leadership. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Aristotle. (trans. 1954). Rhetoric (W. R. Roberts & I. Bywater, Trans., 1st Modern Library ed.). New York: Modern Library.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range leadership development programs: Basic and advanced manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio & Associates.


Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of trans-formational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199–218.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1995). MLQ Multifactor leadership ques-tionnaire: Technical report. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of trans-formational and transactional leadership using the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.

Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. W., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four I’s of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9–16.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effective-ness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345–373.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educa-tional impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to cri-tiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49–80). San Diego: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research: Permission set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transac-tional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 5–34.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transforma-tional leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217.

Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12(1), 73–87.

Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 317–334.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transac-tional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901–910.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applica-

tions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1977). Traits as prototypes: Effects on recognition

memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 38–48.Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor.

Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-MacMillan.


Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S. R., & Miller, S. R. (2001). Charisma is contagious: The effect of leaders’ charisma on observers’ affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2149–2159.

Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145–179.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2001). A meta-analysis to review organiza-tional outcomes related charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 356–371.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques of international business leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 355–391.

Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolu-tionary process. New York: Free Press.

Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2001). A meta-analysis of transforma-tional and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35–66). Amsterdam: JAI.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.

Eden, D. (1988). Pygmalion, goal setting, and expectancy: Compatible ways to boost productivity. Academy of Management Review, 13, 639–652.

Eden, D., Geller, D., Gewirtz, D., Gordon-Terner, R., Inbar, I., Liberman, M., et al. (2000). Implanting Pygmalion leadership style through workshop training: Seven field experiments. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 171–210.

Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H. (2001). Images in words: Presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 527–557.

Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press.

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 37, 1–6.Fleishman, E. A. (1957). A leader behavior description for industry. In R. M. Stogdill

& A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (Research Monograph No. 88, pp. 103–119). Columbus: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. F. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 259–269). New York: Harper & Row.

Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action training for charismatic lead-ership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspira-tional communication of a vision. Personnel Psychology, 56, 671–697.

Gardner, J. W. (1965). The antileadership vaccine. Annual report for the fiscal year, Carnegie Corporation of New York (pp. 3–12).


Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., & Cogliser, C. C. (2010). Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: A review of The Leadership Quarterly’s second decade, 2000–2009. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 922–958.

Gasper, J. M. (1992). Transformational leadership: An integrative review of the lit-erature. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.

Gemmill, G., & Oakley, J. (1992). Leadership: An alienating social myth? Human Relations, 45, 113–129.

Greene, C. N. (1977). Disenchantment with leadership research: Some causes, recom-mendations, and alternative directions. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leader-ship: The cutting edge (pp. 57–67). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Halpin, A. W. (1954). The leadership behavior and combat performance of airplane commanders. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology [now named Journal of Abnormal Psychology], 49, 19–22.

Hart, R. P. (2000). DICTION 5.0: The text analysis program. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage-Scolari.

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ percep-tions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 73, 695–702.

House, R. J. (1971). Path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois: University Press.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409–473.

House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, char-ismatic, and visionary thories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leader-ship theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-108). San Diego: Academic Press.

Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243–269.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leader-ship process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96–112.

Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Hunt, J. G. (1999). Tranformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the

field: An historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 129–144.Hunt, J. G. (2004). Task leadership. In G. R. Goethels, G. J. Sorensen, & J. M. Burns

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (Vol. IV, pp. 1524–1529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jacquart, P., & Antonakis, J. (2010, August). “It’s the economy stupid,” but cha-risma matters too: A dual-process model of presidential election outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Organizational Behavior Division, Montréal, Canada.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transforma-tional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–765.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.


Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36–51.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255.

Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research-and-development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489–501.

Kennedy, P. (2003). A guide to econometrics (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Koene, B. A. S., Vogelaar, A. L. W., & Soeters, J. L. (2002). Leadership effects on

organizational climate and financial performance: Local leadership effect in chain organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 193–215.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraor-dinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Landauer, T. K. (1999). Latent semantic analysis: A theory of the psychology of language and mind. Discourse Processes, 27, 303–310.

Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.

Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Derr, M. (2004). From paragraph to graph: Latent semantic analysis for information visualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5214–5219.

Levitt, S. D. (1997). Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effects of police on crime. American Economic Review, 87, 270–290.

Levitt, S. D. (2002). Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effects of police on crime: Reply. American Economic Review, 92, 1244–1250.

Liden, R. C., & Antonakis, J. (2009). Considering context in psychological leader-ship research. Human Relations, 62, 1587–1605.

Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610–621.

Lord, R. G., Binning, J. F., Rush, M. C., & Thomas, J. C. (1978). The effect of per-formance cues and leader behavior on questionnaire ratings of leadership behav-ior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 27–39.

Lowe, K. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). Ten years of The Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 459–514.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.

McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington, dis-tributed by Halsted Press.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives interact with values and skills to determine what people do. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Miner, J. B. (1975). The uncertain future of the leadership concept. An overview. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 197–208). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Mio, J. S. (1997). Metaphor and politics. Metaphor and Symbol, 12, 113–133.Mio, J. S., Riggio, R. E., Levin, S., & Reese, R. (2005). Presidential leadership and

charisma: The effects of metaphor. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 287–294.


Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogenous populations. Psychometrika, 54, 557–585.

Plato (trans. 1901). The republic of Plato: An ideal commonwealth (B. Jowett, Trans., Rev. ed.). New York: Colonial Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 113–142.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Tranformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Manage-ment, 22, 259–298.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on follower’s trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21–63.

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader contingent and noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 810–821.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329–354.

Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 121–133.

Rush, M. C., Thomas, J. C., & Lord, R. G. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organi zational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 93–110.

Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 122–160). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schriesheim, C. A., House, R. J., & Kerr, S. (1976). Leader initiating structure: A rec-onciliation of discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 297–321.

Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693–703.

Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an explor-atory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19–47.

Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leader-ship: A theoretical extenson, a case study, and implications for research. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 25–42.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charis-matic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.


Shils, E. (1965). Charisma, order, and status. American Sociological Review, 30, 199–213.

Sorci, M., Antonini, G., Cruz, J., Robin, T., Bierlaire, M., & Thiran, J. P. (2010). Modelling human perception of static facial expressions. Image and Vision Computing, 28, 790–806.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.

Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. Columbus: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research.

Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Eds.). (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (Research Monograph No. 88). Columbus: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research.

Towler, A. J. (2003). Effects of charismatic influence training on attitudes, behavior, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 56, 363—381.

Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Trans-formational leadership and moral reasoning, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 304–311.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 381–394.

Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24, 266–285.

Wasielewski. (1985). The emotional basis of charisma. Symbolic Interaction, 8, 207–222.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.

Weber, M. (1968). Max Weber on charisma and institutional building (S. N. Eisenstadt, Ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Westley, F. R., & Mintzberg, H. (1988). Profiles of strategic vision: Levesque and Iacocca. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 161–212). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Willner, A. R. (1984). The spellbinders: Charismatic political leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43, 975–995.

Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.

Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 101–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Date post:	06-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongkien
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

8 Transformational and Charismatic Leadership · PDF file260 . PART III. THE MAJOR SCHOOLS OF...

Documents